Carbon Barrel quality?

alberta tactical rifle said:
I was going to reply with a long explanation, but decided I was only wasting my time. Apparently you know everything already and do not possess an open mind.
Click to expand...

Some of us would surely like to read your long explanation. The debate has got off to a good start and it is very interesting.

Could you change your mind and come back ? That thread is pretty fascinating.
 
This has definitely been an informative thread! Keep it coming! So far I'm with shawn. Its a good gun, but it isn't competition grade. And I guess I'll have to keep in mind that when I'm target shooting, the barrel is getting hot, even though I can't feel it.
Thanks everyone!
 
Interwebs are huge to navigate

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/carbon-wrapped-barrel-93657/#post662432

Speaking of sleeves, aluminum jacket for you, patent of 1932. somehow didn't fly, oh well
https://www.google.ca/patents/US2112144


Regardless, lets look at Christensen Arms ones
https://www.google.ca/patents/US8677670
https://www.google.ca/patents/US5804756

Lets read some of it, from the source so to speak:

One problem which has developed with barrels having a metallic liner surrounded by composite is that they often fail to maintain consistency when repeatedly fired. As a gun is fired several times in rapid succession, the heat generated from the firing of each bullet begins to accumulate in the bore. Because the metal liner and the composite materials generally have somewhat different coefficients of expansion when exposed to heat, a barrel heated by repeated firing can quickly loose its accuracy and consistency. This is due in large part to prior art lack of awareness or inability to form composite/metallic gun barrels, wherein the coefficients of thermal expansion are matched to those of the liner
Click to expand...

They specifically claim this to be a problem, and they claim they solve it by different orientation of 2 layers of fiber - inner and outer and calculating an exact mix to match the thermal expansion of the barrel.

barrel temperatures in automatic weapons can exceed the melting point of the composite or epoxy resin
Click to expand...
Hm, melting yeh? I was under the impression that you want magic coating on top if you plan to heat the barrels up. Well fine, those automatic weapons you know, belt fed probably.


Mr. Michael K. Degerness disagrees with Mr. Christensen
https://www.google.ca/patents/US6889464?dq=6,889,464&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI1sfGqaLGxwIVxxaSCh09eQU8

In some prior art composite gun barrels, the jacket has several layers with the tows in each layer having a different winding angle and/or some other different property or properties intended to enhance a particular characteristic such as bursting strength, torsional stiffness or bending stiffness..... This prior art type of gun barrel has several disadvantages such as for example: (1) its accuracy is reduced by excessive variations in the angle the muzzle is pointing at the moment of exit of the projectile caused by high amplitude vibrations at the muzzle end of the barrel; and (2) some embodiments are excessively susceptible to overheating during use. In the prior art, the muzzle angle is stabilized by trimming the length of the barrel to a point where the muzzle is at a node of low amplitude vibrations. However, this technique is time consuming and difficult.
Click to expand...
Hm overheating, "excessively susceptible" pardon me. "time consuming and difficult" ok I guess so.

The prior art composite barrels commonly include a liner as the tubular member forming the bore of the firearm with its internal walls. The liner is usually too thin to be used alone as a barrel in the firearm without reinforcement. This type of composite barrel has the disadvantage of having poorer burst strength, poorer thermal conductivity along and through the barrel and wider vibrational swings of its muzzle end.
Click to expand...
Poorer thermal conductivity? Who would imagine with thermal conductivity 50 of steel vs 8 of carbon fiber. I would never...

Well, to be honest, with fun aside, it seems to me that in fact the situation is even worse. Not only thermal performance is questionable, but also carbon wrapped barrel has issue with rates of thermal expansion of steel vs wrap, different vibration as sound wave travels through differently through steel and outer layers. Harder to manufacture and easier to screw up. And does not show significant performance advantage?

Not like I'm against the looks though - aesthetics are excellent, no argument.
 
As always, these types of discussions/topics go off the rails.

As a dealer and user of a wide variety of firearms (including carbon barrel models) my anecdotal experiences, observations, and views are as follows on carbon wrapped barrels: the genuine advantage of this design is found in hunting/sporting rifles, not in AR's or "benchrest" rifles that will be shot frequently (approaching barrel lifespan) or for extended sessions. I will leave the latter part of that statement alone as my research dovetails, in many areas, with what has been stated above.

Where a carbon wrapped barrel rifle benefits the user is not just in the weight savings, but rather where the weight in the rifle is reduced, and the manner in which it changes the balance point of the firearm. That is to say, ceterus paribus, a carbon barrel rifle is easier and markedly more comfortable to handle, point, and aim (especially off-hand), than a non-carbon barrel rifle. Whether it is more comfortable to actually shoot is debatable, as ultralight guns generally require a muzzle brake to offset the increase in felt recoil, which some find very uncomfortable to contend with.

Personally, I used to think carbon barrel rifle manufacturers were capitalizing on the deep pockets of the ultra-light hunting crowd (which they are of course) by saving them 1/3 to 1/2 pound of weight. In contrast, after spending considerable time comparing and contrasting them, and in particular, observing customers as they handle, use, and provide feedback on them, there is no "voodoo". There is a definite value to a carbon wrapped barrel, given a specific set of requirements.

Would I recommend a carbon barrel for 7mm Rem Mag or 338LM if the customer tells me they want to use the rifle to shoot a lot? No. I would suggest a standard barrel.

Would I recommend one for a mountain hunter who will be sighting in and using it for hunting? Most definitely.
 
If the goal is lightest possible weight and expected usage is 1-2 shots at best it makes even less sense.

Carbon sleeve has weight. If all the work is performed by inner steel barrel, removing the sleeve all together will reduce weight would it not?
 
Shawn_338 said:
You must be an engineer,
Click to expand...

That was my thought, hence not continuing.
We all know engineers can do "anything" in theory.

I know Mike Degerness fairly well and believe me he is no dummy.
All I will bother to add is that the Proof Research barrels WORK. Having seen the results of catastrophic failures in rifles having Proof CFW barrels as well as conventional barrels is illuminating to say the least.

As I said accuracy is accuracy having 2 identical rifles and with both capable of .2 groups, the only difference is 1 weighs 14 lbs the other 9lbs, I prefer the CFW barrel for the weight savings and the FACT that it does not string shots as it gets hot.
Call it hocus pocus and hate on CFW barrels all you want, the fact remains the 1s made by Proof shoot every bit as well as a conventional barrel does and in MY EXPERIENCE do NOT have any downsides apart from price.
 
Could you clarify , not meaning to derail the thread but even a conventional barrels are capable of 2 groups once in a while,(it's called a fluke or an anomaly) sounds like the OP's question was answered , barrels would be fine for hunting,
 
Pesky ab said:
Could you clarify , not meaning to derail the thread but even a conventional barrels are capable of 2 groups once in a while,(it's called a fluke or an anomaly) sounds like the OP's question was answered , barrels would be fine for hunting,
Click to expand...

I am NOT talking fluke occurrences when I say .2 groups. My competition rifle will be fitted with a CFW barrel for the 2016 season.
 
Just want to thank those in the know for sharing their experience(s) on this subject matter as I happen to be working towards my first custom rifle and for my particular needs the CFW barrel is peaking my interest. This thread has offered me a lot of information in a short period of time. So thank you gentlemen once again.

If I may direct a question to ATRS..I appreciate your professional discretion when sharing your personal experiences with certain builders of these CFW barrels. However in an effort to avoid a costly mistake, I wonder if you could elaborate on your negative experience with certain barrels in this field with me through PM? (I would gladly use whatever method best suits to discuss this with you). I have met the guys from Proof personally and have also heard many positives about their CFW barrels. I just have another option I am considering and hearing from you would just arm me with more information to digest when making my decision. Thanks in advance.
 
Father Hood said:
Just want to thank those in the know for sharing their experience(s) on this subject matter as I happen to be working towards my first custom rifle and for my particular needs the CFW barrel is peaking my interest. This thread has offered me a lot of information in a short period of time. So thank you gentlemen once again.

If I may direct a question to ATRS..I appreciate your professional discretion when sharing your personal experiences with certain builders of these CFW barrels. However in an effort to avoid a costly mistake, I wonder if you could elaborate on your negative experience with certain barrels in this field with me through PM? (I would gladly use whatever method best suits to discuss this with you). I have met the guys from Proof personally and have also heard many positives about their CFW barrels. I just have another option I am considering and hearing from you would just arm me with more information to digest when making my decision. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Send me an email to the shop. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
 
I find it to be quite amusing that even a suspicion of me being an engineer somehow invalidates my arguments. I guess it would be better to be presented as a reverend, so my argument would be accepted based on pure faith maybe? But science - hell no, those pesky engineers looking to spoil everything.

An overpriced novelty product faces stiff opposition of disbelievers who doubt a value of magical component based on its known physical qualities. Sacrilege!
 
owlowl said:
I find it to be quite amusing that even a suspicion of me being an engineer somehow invalidates my arguments. I guess it would be better to be presented as a reverend, so my argument would be accepted based on pure faith maybe? But science - hell no, those pesky engineers looking to spoil everything.

An overpriced novelty product faces stiff opposition of disbelievers who doubt a value of magical component based on its known physical qualities. Sacrilege!
Click to expand...

Here's a good plan if you don't like them don't use them, but speak of something you have zero experience with other than what you have read. I have first hand experience with more than one carbon barrel and so does Rick. If people believed everything thing the read with out trying something for them selfs once in awhile we'd all sound like you and looks ridicules on a web site. Thanks for share your zero hand experience on the topic.
 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Eye witness evidence is the lowest possible in science and engineering.

I quoted you patents written by the manufactures of these barrels themselves. Christensen claims all the problems I note with heat transfer, thermal expansion, vibration so on. And they present "a solution". Mr. Degerness in its turn states the same heap of problems, claiming that Christensen solution does not work, and patents his own solution.

And on top of that no one even claims that the cfw barrel shows any significant advantage except weight "compared to full steel barrel of the same diameter" while no one compares that to a full steel barrel of the same INNER steel diameter of cfw barrel. Which would be even lighter and twice cheaper.

And this is somehow is invalid set of arguments just because I didn't happen to buy golden plated barrel first hand as opposed to someone WHO SELLS THEM. Unbeatable logic.
 
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, it's fine until you realize they enjoy it. I'm over this topic. I have and shoot carbon barreled rifles and enjoy them and I could care less what anybody thinks other wise.
 
I'm an engineer and I usually find myself arguing when people become emotional about something they should be rational about.

Carbon fiber barrels...I think it's interesting...stiffer than the sporter barrels...lighter than the bull barrels...I would like a thorough comparison to be done as well though...numbers dont lie.
 
Proof research had a lot of information out there, I recall seeing something about using their barrels on a mini gun, with a very high rate of fire, the evidence I remember is that temp stayed much lower than solid steel barrels, and throat erosion and barrel wear was much less on the carbon barrels. I talked to them in the past, they have a lot of test equipment and have presented some results to the military as well.

I admit, at 3x the cost of conventional barrels, they are not for everyone, but where weight or heat is a factor, there are advantages.

There is also a video on their web site showing them shoot a 3 shot sub moa group, then the unscrew the barrel and break up a cinder block with it, re-install it and shoot another sub moa group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom